UPDATE - NOVEMBER 2006 - PART FOUR

A LEVY = A TAX - AN EXCISE = A TAX AND DOUBLE TAXING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AUSTRALIANS BETRAYED!

Australians were  initially betrayed by the Hawke - Keating Labor Government (Govt.) when without a Referendum they introduced a-bi-annual excise (tax) on Fuel, Alcohol and Tobacco and at the same instance hit us with a federal tax on these products which is double - taxing and un constitutional. It is worth noting that this devious act of double-taxing was implemented with total silence by the Opposition - Liberal - Country (National) Coalition, the Greens and the democrats.

During the reign of NSW Liberal Premier Nick Greiner, his Roads Minister, Country Party Leader Wal Murray introduced a 3 cents by 3 cents levy on fuel. Once again this was unconstitutional and once again the opposition Parties remained silent. This was instituted without and amendment to the Australian Constitution.

Amending the Constitution:

The Constitution provides a mechanism by which it can be altered, called a Referendum. Before there can be any change to the Constitution, a majority of electors must vote in favour of the change. In addition, there must be a majority vote in a majority of States, that is, in four out of the six States. (Further, a proposed amendment which would diminish the representation of a State in the Commonwealth Parliament or which would alter the territorial limits of a State must be approved by a majority of electors in that State.) Ordinarily, before a matter can be the subject of a referendum, both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament must pass the proposed law containing the suggested amendment of the Constitution (section 128).

Australian Government Solicitor

January 1998

In other words the aforementioned excises and Levies were implemented without a Referendum. In fact the only way double-taxing could be introduced was for the major parties to vote in favour of its implantation in both Commonwealth Houses of Parliament.

Chapter V111

Alteration of the Constitution

mode of altering the Constitution

Section 128.22    This constitution shall not be altered expect in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less that two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes and such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fail to pass it, or passes it with and amendment to which the first - mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first - mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first - mentioned House will not agree, the Governor - General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first - mentioned House, and either with or without and amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the states a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor - General for the Queen's assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of Representatives, or the minimum number of representatatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law. In this section, "Territory" means and territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty - two of this Constitution is respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.

We now know that the Australian public has been used and abused by the Federal and State Governments but it worsens when you discover that our third tier of Government, Local Council's and Shires (Local Govt.) have voted to double - tax ratepayers by voting to impose levies on top of council (shire) rates which is unconstitutional.

On Monday, August 14, 2006, Kogarah (NSW) Council's controversial proposal for a one per cent levy on all development applications was narrowly approved.

The NSW State Govt. has given all Councils the option of imposing the levy after a heated debate by the council in May, 2006. Originally, Labor wanted the levy to apply only to Development Applications (DAS) of $500,000 and over.

This was rejected by Liberal Councilors and supported by Unity Councilor Annie Tang, who wanted the levy to apply to all DAS.

A further example of unconstitutional actions is the infrastructure levy imposed by the Canterbury City Labor controlled Council for a period of 15 years for road and pavement repairs. This is double - taxing in that the cost of this infrastructure is already incorporated in the Council Rates. This extra burden on Land - Holders leaves them with no alternative but to incorporate the extra costs into their leases both for small business and domestic rents.

We now have three tiers of Govt. who are breach of the Australian Constitution and their dictatorial behavior is not too dissimilar to the way Hitler controlled Nazi Germany. We have an added concern that Local Government (Council and Shires) has become a kindergarten for the major political parties, in that, their members can be elected to this political school of learning at the expense of ratepayers.

What has amazed us is the countless number of complaints we've received regarding the "Taj Mahals" the Councils and Shires have built for their headquarters at the expense of ratepayers, Australia wide.

May we suggest to you that you study our entire website, and only then will you realise, on the majority of issues that our Government and Opposition Parties are in fact, in bed together.

Then, and only then, will you realise that the Australian public has been betrayed not only by the major political parties but by the financial members of these parties more so those you see working for the parties at polling booths on election day.

SHAME - SHAME - SHAME

THE AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD (AWB) UPDATE

It is going to be very interesting how Commissioner Cole can exonerate the Howard - Vaile - Liberal - National Coalition Government from having and knowledge about the AWB paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein, more so, because Mr. Cole has a video tape of one of the key players admitting that the Australian Government has been aware of the kickback payments from the AWB as far back as 1995 which was 4 years prior to the AWB being shifted to a private company in lieu of being Government controlled. We also have several copies of the same video evidence.

Meanwhile, a report from the United States on Monday September 4, 2006, that a lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia, Rodney Edmond will be acting for 40 United States and Canadian wheat farmers in a civil action against the AWB in the United States Courts. Mr. Edmond has filed a complaint under American's - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisation Act, also know as the Rico Act. This act was initially introduced to fight organised crime such as the Mafia, and Motorcycle Gangs. In latter years it has been used against Corporations. Mr. Edmond said, "the history of the AWB is despicable, and they must be held accountable. After we field the complaint, we saw their written response that everybody files these kind of claims, these are capricious claims and things of that sort". Mr. Edmond added, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what bribery is, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what blowing up markets is. We're going to bring heat on this company because they need to be held accountable to people who have been injured by their despicable actions. There's two sides to Rico, criminal where people go to jail, and there's also the civil action. And that's what we filed, we filed a civil Rico claim. We're not asking for people to go to jail, we're asking for economic and monetary damages for those acts that fall within RICO. In this case, the acts are really specific, they're laid out in the complaint, but obviously the bribery, the wire and mail fraud that quite frankly is our representation, the AWB, they via fax or wire fraud, they represented false information to the United Nations in terms of the billing that they were supposed to get paid by the United Nations (UN) for whatever it is that they sold to Iraq. We had other actions though of bribery in other nations. It's my understanding that in Yemen there were some issues ob bribery, in order to secure contracts. We've got this whole enterprise and this whole scheme, so to speak wherein AWB has consistently been involved in a pattern of racketeering. The bribery, the corruption, I mean we've got a situation in the United States where the United States entity of AWB, AWB USA Limited, which is based in Portland, Oregon, they essentially blew up the grain market that exists between Yemen and the United States, because they abused the Federal program that we had here. As a result of AWB's abuse of the program, no other United States grain operators can use the program in sales to Yemen, so all of these, in conjunction, make up the enterprise that we're alleging forms the basis of the RICO grain."

Mr. Edmond the Principal lawyer in this case went on to say, "if it hadn't been for the bribes, United States companies would have secured a substantial percentage of wheat contracts with Iraq. I think that AWB my come back and argue well you know what? Iraq was upset with the United States because of the first Persian Gulf war, and that they would be disinclined to do business with us wheat exporters who actually did participate in the program, and actually got paid some monies from the Iraqi Government. It totaled probably $60 million to $70 million in comparison of the $2.3 billion that AWB got, but the bottom line is that our argument in terms of damages is that the Iraqi wheat market was a prime market, meaning that the Iraqi Government was paying a premium price per metric tonne, more than any other place in the world at that time, and that when the United States, wheat farmers were cut off from selling their wheat to Iraq, they wound up having to sell it for lesser prices in other areas and in other nations, and so that differential, the difference between what they actually had to sell their wheat for, and what they could have sold it to Iraq."

Mr. Edmond admitted, "we're working with lawyers in Australia, we're working with lawyers in Washington DC quite frankly we have lawyers in New York right now who are getting ready to go ahead and take a big bite into this case. The only way to tackle a global world, is to have multiple, multiple resources at hand. This is not about money, this is about accountability. We will represent our clients in fact by having multiple firms with multiple resources, which will allow for a different perspective on trial strategy doing literally a wolf - pack attack on this rogue company."

It must be noted under the RICO Act, successful plaintiffs are automatically entitled to 3 times their monetary losses. Mr. Edmond believes his client's losses could total $US 300 million, and that means if successful, the wheat farmers might conceivably be awarded close to $US 1 billion.

IS THE HOWARD - VAILE COALITION GOVERNMENT GUILTY OF A SEDITIOUS ACT?

Well may we ask if the Australian Government has committed a seditious act. When you consider the AWB kickback payments to Saddam Hussein were used to buy weaponry and to reward suicide bombers families with $25,000 bonuses. This led to thousands upon thousands of deaths including women and children.

Another question that needs to be answered why did the Bush Administration ignore the concerns of United States Wheat Associates when they reported the AWB kickback payments to Saddam Hussein? Did the United States and Canadian Government deliberately turn a blind eye to the despicable acts by the AWB to protect the Australian Government?

Link>>>>UPDATE - OCTOBER 2006 - PART ONE